Transcript Highlights:

• alternate contract sources.
• Alternate contract.
• contracts sources.
• So state your contracts and alternative contract sources.
• Contracts are mandatory in nature. And then optional alternate contracts.

Transcript Highlights:

• There aren't public votes to enter into contracts or renew contracts, even of very significant value—hundreds
• When these contracts are being negotiated, I think it... ...when these contracts are being negotiated
• The contracts are renewed, even $30 to $50 million contracts. ...are renewed, even $30 million to $50
• million contracts, okay?
• So it keeps going up, and all contracts are renewed and have, let's say it's a three-year contract, it's

Committee: Senate Education

Summary: The Senate Education Committee heard several bills focused on school nutrition, campus safety, college affordability, and UC contracting ethics. SB 1058 by Senator McNerney would remove price as the primary factor in school nutrition procurement, allowing districts more flexibility to prioritize meal quality, cultural appropriateness, local sourcing, and sustainability. Support came from school nutrition officials, education agencies, and school business groups; there was no opposition. Members raised questions about vendor selection and safeguards against favoritism, and the bill was ultimately moved forward on a due pass motion. SB 1140 by Senator Ashby, sponsored by the California Federation of Teachers, would require school safety plans to address access control during construction, maintenance, and repair projects by limiting unattended entry points such as open doors and gates. Supporters included Brady Campaign, Moms Demand Action, school employees, labor groups, and Prism. Members discussed how the bill would apply to both new construction and ongoing maintenance, and the measure advanced on a due pass motion. SB 959 was taken up on consent and also moved forward. SB 1006 by Senator Padilla would raise the Cal Grant B Access Award to a new minimum and tie future increases to inflation, with related supplemental awards for student parents and former foster youth also indexed. Support came from higher education advocates, CSU, student groups, and public advocacy organizations, with testimony from a Sac State student describing housing, transportation, and food insecurity. Members generally supported the bill, though questions were raised about fiscal impact; the author estimated about $21 million in first-year costs. The bill passed the committee on a due pass motion. SB 1141 by Senator Wahab would bar businesses from contracting with the University of California if a UC executive is paid by, or has been paid by, that business within the prior year, aiming to address conflicts of interest in UC contracting. AFSCME and UC workers supported the bill, citing examples of executives serving on corporate boards while their institutions contract with those companies. UC and business groups opposed it, arguing it was overly broad, could capture ordinary dividends or unpaid advisory roles, and could disrupt essential contracts and operations. After extensive debate over existing conflict-of-interest laws and whether the bill would create practical problems, the committee approved SB 1141 on a 4-3 vote and then reported the remaining bills out 7-0 as calls were lifted, concluding the agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• There aren't public votes to enter into contracts or renew contracts, even of very significant value,
• When these contracts are being negotiated, I think it... ...when these contracts are being negotiated
• The contracts are renewed, even $30 to $50 million contracts. ...are renewed, even $30 million to $50
• million contracts, okay?
• So it keeps going up, and all contracts are renewed and have, let's say it's a three-year contract, it's

Summary: The Senate Education Committee heard several bills related to school nutrition, campus safety, college financial aid, and UC contracting ethics. SB 1058 by Senator McNerney would remove price as the primary factor in school nutrition procurement grants, allowing districts more flexibility to prioritize quality, local sourcing, cultural responsiveness, and healthier meals. Supporters from school nutrition and education groups said it would help districts better serve students and local farmers without increasing state costs. After questions about vendor selection and safeguards against favoritism, the bill was moved do pass and later approved 7-0. SB 1140 by Senator Ashby, sponsored by the California Federation of Teachers, would require school safety plans to address access control during construction, maintenance, and repair projects. Supporters said the bill closes a gap that can leave gates or doors unsecured and could help prevent unauthorized access to campuses. There was no opposition, and the committee approved the bill unanimously. SB 959 was also taken up on consent and passed. SB 1006 by Senator Padilla would raise the Cal Grant B Access Award and tie future increases to inflation using the California Consumer Price Index. Supporters said the current award has lost most of its value and does not cover basic needs like housing, food, transportation, and books, affecting hundreds of thousands of students. Members discussed the fiscal impact and the need to keep aid aligned with rising costs; the bill was moved forward and later approved 7-0. SB 1141 by Senator Wahab would bar UC contracts with businesses that pay UC executives or where executives serve in paid roles, aiming to prevent conflicts of interest. UC and the Chamber of Commerce opposed the bill as too broad and potentially disruptive to operations, while supporters argued existing rules are insufficient because many contracting decisions happen outside public view. After extended debate over recusal, transparency, and the scope of the restrictions, the committee passed the bill 4-2 and then finalized all bills on the agenda before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• She has four contracts, on-call contracts at the State Hospital can utilize when they need coverage.
• She has four contracts, on-call contracts at the State Hospital can utilize when they need coverage.
• Is that a proposed contract or is that contract already in existence? You'd have to ask staff.
• Is it staff know if the contract is already in existence, or is that a proposed contract?
• “I move for the adoption of in-state contract number 22, or out-of-state contract number 22.”

Committee: All ARKANSAS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (ALC)

Transcript Highlights:

• There aren't public votes to enter into contracts or renew contracts, even of very significant value—hundreds
• When these contracts are being negotiated, I think it... ...when these contracts are being negotiated
• The contracts are renewed, even $30 to $50 million contracts. ...are renewed, even $30 to $50 million
• contracts, okay?
• So it keeps going up, and all contracts are renewed and have, let’s say it’s a three-year contract, it

Committee: Senate Education

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> to do the contract or someone else? to do the contract or someone else?
• We have one contract.
• We have one contract. It's a medical service provider contract. No RFP.
• We have one contract. It's a medical service provider contract. No RFP.
• </c> them the contract in the first place. them the contract in the first place.

Transcript Highlights:

• contracts that we've negotiated<00:42:45.440><c> contracts</c><00:42:45.920><c> with.
• contract.
• And it and it's a statewide contract.<00:47:30.240><c> Correct.</c> contract. Correct. contract.
• That's under this contract. three times. That's under this contract.
• initial contract, and we're not even at 40% of that contract.

Summary: The Government Contracts Committee first approved the minutes from its July 8 meeting and then moved through a large agenda of contracts and deferred items. The committee deferred a Kentucky Education Television contract because the vendor was still not registered with the Secretary of State, and also deferred a University of Louisville contract to the September meeting at the university’s request. Both motions passed by roll call. The committee then took up a contract with the Department for Behavioral Health, Developmental and Intellectual Disabilities for Seven Counties Services. Committee members questioned why the state continues funding the provider despite its ongoing bankruptcy tied to unpaid retirement contributions, how the funding split is determined, whether the state had explored other providers or direct state delivery, and whether all services in the contract are truly required by statute. Agency officials said Seven Counties is the statutorily designated community mental health center for the region, serves about 24,500 people, and provides core safety-net services that would be difficult to replace; they also said the bankruptcy dispute is still ongoing and the contested amount is about $20 million. The committee ultimately deferred the contract to the next meeting and requested additional information on the scope of services and potential offsets or recovery of unfunded liabilities. The final deferred item was a Department for Community Based Services contract with Youth Villages for the Intercept program. DCBS explained that the program is used because it is an approved evidence-based service under the Family First Prevention Services Act, that Youth Villages has Kentucky staff and offices even though it is headquartered in Tennessee, and that the contract is intended to support intensive in-home services, foster care stabilization, and family reunification. Members asked why the services could not be provided in-house, whether Medicaid should cover more of the cost, and whether the state requires the provider to bill Medicaid as a payer of last resort. DCBS said it would verify billing and funding details and provide them back to the committee. The committee then voted to defer the contract to the next meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we are required to contract with vendors who are on state procurement contracts, NASBO contracts,
• or other contracts through the state.
• I have a couple of questions about contracts, and I'd like to know how many contracts management services
• I have a couple of questions about contracts, and I'd like to know how many contracts, do you know how
• There was contracted snow removal at St.

Summary: The committee met jointly with Senate Finance and House Appropriations to review the Idaho Department of Correction budget, beginning with an agency overview from Legislative Services analyst Noah Peterson and then testimony from Director Bree Derrick. Discussion focused on the department’s overall funding mix, declining balances in dedicated funds such as inmate labor and probation/parole receipts, vacancy management, and the impact of the governor’s holdback exemption. Members also asked about software and technology costs, the Hepatitis C Fund, replacement items, and why some positions remain vacant or are held open as a budget strategy. A substantial portion of the meeting covered the department’s major divisions and cost drivers. In state prisons, county/out-of-state placement, community corrections, community-based substance use disorder treatment, and medical services, the analyst and director explained enhancement requests, supplemental needs, and rising operating costs tied to inflation, population growth, and contract rates. Members questioned the inmate labor fund’s decline, the loss of work contracts, the cost and effectiveness of recidivism and transparency software, the Pocatello reentry center, body-worn cameras, RFID and drone detection technology, and the medical contract with Centurion. The department said some cuts were made or planned in response to budget pressure, including reduced spending on Recidivis and other contracts, while body-worn cameras and some public-safety tools were retained. The committee also discussed prison population pressures, county jail and out-of-state placement costs, mandatory minimum sentences, and the use of county jails as overflow. Director Derrick said the department is seeing more admissions than releases and that Idaho’s incarceration rate remains high relative to neighboring states. She also said the department is working to expand county and out-of-state options and to pursue more inmate labor contracts. Several members asked for follow-up information on staffing, contract counts, program impacts, and fund balances. The meeting then moved to the Commission of Pardons and Parole budget, where Director Christine Starr testified that commissioners are part-time but effectively work full-time, are not paid for training or all preparation time, and that turnover remains a concern. No votes were taken; the committee adjourned to resume the next day after work groups.

Transcript Highlights:

• Jenkins was hired without a contract that is approved by the legislature government contract review,
• contract the uh legislature government contract review<00:03:23.599><c> and</c><00:03:23.840><c> that
• best</c><00:03:25.120><c> of</c> review and that contract to the best of review and that contract to
• </c> because he was not a contracted because he was not a contracted employee.<00:04:26.720><c> For</
• . contracts. contracts.

Summary: The meeting began with roll call, where a quorum was confirmed, and the commission approved the July 8, 2025 minutes. The staff report was deferred to later in the agenda. The commission then took up a consolidated matter involving case numbers 24 LEC 3 and 24 LEC 6, centered on a pending motion to dismiss and a response that had been filed. Counsel for Representative Grossberg argued the case should be dismissed because the attorney handling the matter, Mr. Jenkins, allegedly lacked a properly approved contract under government contract review requirements. She also argued that the complaint process was flawed, that complainants relied on rumor and anonymous assertions, and that the matter reflected political retaliation and abuse of process. She said a renewed motion to dismiss had been filed and requested a hearing date and briefing schedule. Enforcement counsel responded that he had been authorized to proceed by the commission, that the contract issue had been disclosed before the preliminary hearing, and that the cited cases did not support dismissal. The chair allowed limited rebuttal, after which the parties clarified their positions on whether Mr. Jenkins had been authorized to act as enforcement counsel and for what period. The commission then voted to go into executive session under KRS 61.810 to discuss and deliberate the pending motion and any confidential complaints. The motion passed, and the meeting moved into closed session.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> considered for that contract purpose. considered for that contract purpose. Correct. Correct.
• </c> the tenants of their contracts fully. the tenants of their contracts fully.
• </c> it'll be a goods and services contract. it'll be a goods and services contract.
• . contract. contract.
• We went through their contract.

Summary: The committee met to hear updates from the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Corrections on two related issues: a proposed high-acuity juvenile mental health treatment facility and medical services contracts, including the impact of Wellpath’s bankruptcy proceedings. At the start, the chair agreed to hear the Department of Corrections first so members could get context on the medical contract before turning to DJJ’s proposal. DOC officials said Wellpath, the department’s comprehensive medical and mental health provider since 2013, was awarded its current contract through a 2021 procurement process. They reported that Wellpath’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan had been confirmed and that the company had transitioned ownership to lenders, but had not yet fully completed the bankruptcy process. DOC said there had been no service lapses, no reduction in care, and no known impact on Kentucky vendors or hospitals, and that DOC staff meet with Wellpath almost weekly. Members asked whether the committee had been kept informed and whether the bankruptcy could affect future services or subcontractors. DJJ then presented its concept for a high-acuity facility, explaining that the project is still in the preliminary programming and conceptual stage and has not yet entered the formal design phase with DECA. Officials said the proposal in the capital plan would create a 24-bed facility, with 16 clinical beds and 8 assessment/stabilization beds, to serve justice-involved youth with serious mental health needs. They said the facility would need to separate males and females and high- and low-risk youth, and that current placements often require sending youth out of state to places such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arkansas, and Texas. Staff said the goal is to centralize treatment, improve safety, and reduce the need for fragmented or out-of-state placements. Committee members questioned the cost estimates, staffing needs, and whether the facility was justified given the small number of youth currently placed out of state. DJJ said the operational estimate includes an unknown medical-contract component and that the number of youth needing the facility can fluctuate because of surges in the juvenile population. Officials also said they had consulted with South Carolina, which is developing a similar facility, and noted that renovating existing facilities was considered but could be more expensive or impractical than building a separate site. No votes or formal actions were taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• uh contracts for services contract uh contracts for $10,000<00:03:21.200><c> and</c><00:03:21.360><c
• </c> about this contract? about this contract?
• . contract. contract.
• </c> &gt;&gt; contract moves forward. &gt;&gt; contract moves forward.
• </c> to approve the contract. to approve the contract.

Summary: The committee first approved the April 13 minutes and then turned to a large agenda of contracts. Chairman Douglas said there were 52 contracts totaling about $369.3 million, and noted that most vendors were registered with the Secretary of State except for item 118 on the routine personal services green list and item 19 involving Morehead State University and Kentucky State University. The committee voted to defer item 118 to the June 26 meeting and later also deferred the Kentucky State University contract on the deferred list to the June 26 meeting. The main discussion centered on a deferred personal services contract for the Kentucky Board of Optometric Examiners, involving outside legal counsel. Senator Meredith raised concerns about KRS 320 and whether the board had authority to hire outside counsel when the statute says the Attorney General shall provide legal services to the board. Dr. Mary Beth Morris, the board president, and Christopher Thacker of the Attorney General’s office testified after being sworn in. Thacker explained that the statute and related law allow both Attorney General assistance and independent counsel, and argued that outside counsel is appropriate for day-to-day legal work because it avoids conflicts, especially on open records issues, regulatory advice, and disciplinary hearings. Senator Meredith said he agreed with approving the contract but questioned how the board had reached this point and whether the current statutes reflect modern practice. He raised concerns about transparency and accountability, referencing a prior advisory opinion involving the board’s handling of exam requirements during COVID and saying the board should have consulted the Attorney General before acting. Thacker responded that the Attorney General’s office serves the Commonwealth as a whole, not as counsel to one board, and that the board’s use of outside counsel is a reasonable and economical arrangement. The exchange ended with Meredith suggesting that broader legislative action may be needed to clarify reporting relationships and oversight for the board.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> so the Met council's original contract so the Met council's original contract with<00:08:06.280>
• </c> for the council to enforce contract for the council to enforce contract requirements requirements
• </c> would perform uh inside of that contract would perform uh inside of that contract so<00:26:46.480
• How will the project actually be, or how will the contract quantities actually be contracted for?
• . having more contract offer options and having more contract offer options and contract<01:09:30.239

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• I want to make sure how much is this contract for?”
• underlying contract, is that correct?”
• So if the written contract has the one point of...
• Next item is the review of the CompSack contract.
• We are extending for two years on this particular contract.

Committee: All ALC-STATE INSURANCE PROGRAMS OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE

Transcript Highlights:

• underlying contract, is that correct?
• contract is that correct?
• So if the written contract has the one point of...
• When does that contract end? It will end in December of this year. So why do we need two contracts?
• When does that contract end? It will end in December of this year. So why do we need two contracts?

Committee: All ALC-STATE INSURANCE PROGRAMS OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE

Summary: The State Insurance Programs Oversight Subcommittee met on June 17 and reviewed a series of Employee Benefits Division and Office of Property Risk items. The committee approved formulary changes for March and April that favored lower-cost generics, removed some new-to-market drugs from coverage pending more evidence, and made maintenance changes to migraine and diabetes medications. Members also approved a cell and gene therapy policy that would route those therapies through prior authorization rather than automatic coverage; officials said the process should not delay urgent cases and that no current members would be affected. The committee then reviewed a UAMS pharmacy benefit consultant contract amendment, but after extended discussion about the written scope and dollar amounts, the motion was approved with the understanding that any use of optional services would return to the committee for further review. The committee also reviewed the U.S. Able Mutual/Blue Advantage third-party administration contract and the CompSack employee assistance program contract, which officials said would reduce per-member costs and add services. The subcommittee approved proposed 2027 rates for state employees and public employees, with a 9.8% increase for state employees and a 4.9% increase for public school employees. Officials also reported that the UnitedHealthcare rebid was in its final negotiation stage and would return in August, with medical and pharmacy coverage split as previously recommended. In response to questions, the director said the division was considering broader preventive-care offerings, including weight-loss drug coverage, but would proceed cautiously and with strong utilization controls and holistic support if such a program were adopted. On the property risk side, the committee reviewed permanent rules making prior temporary rules permanent, a contingency-fee subrogation contract, and renewals for claims management, actuarial services, and investment management. Members raised concerns about Sedgwick’s claim-adjustment timeliness and communication with school districts after severe weather events; officials said performance guarantees and communication expectations had been strengthened, but the renewal was kept at three years for continuity. Finally, the committee approved 2026-27 captive insurance program rates, which included no change to minimum deductibles, a 10% overall rate reduction, and bucketed rate changes by entity type. Officials said the captive program was working as intended, with improved actuarial support and claims experience, and the meeting adjourned after the approvals.

Transcript Highlights:

• and contract management.
• A poorly run procurement can lead to a poorly managed contract, and a poorly managed contract devalues
• Negotiations and contract development should result in a contract that is clear and enforceable.
• When the procurement has been completed and the contract awarded and signed, the OIG looks at contract
• , but I think in that contract.

Committee: Senate Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight

Transcript Highlights:

• Provider contracts are written contracts between health carriers and health care professionals or facilities
• Provider contracts are written contracts between health carriers and health care professionals or facilities
• One is: what is the typical term of these contracts, length of contract, and how frequently are they
• As Chief Contracting Officer, my team and I negotiate, manage, and maintain our insurance contracts on
• As Chief Contracting Officer, my team and I negotiate, manage, and maintain our insurance contracts on

Summary: The committee heard public hearings on several health-related bills. House Bill 1904 would prohibit cat declawing except for therapeutic purposes, with staff explaining definitions, fines, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The prime sponsor and animal welfare advocates described declawing as cruel and linked it to pain and behavior problems, while the Washington State Veterinary Medical Association supported the substance of the bill but asked to remove the added reporting and disciplinary provisions as redundant and burdensome. House Bill 2211 would provide guidance for medically tailored meals under existing Medicaid-related nutrition supports, including standards for Washington-based nonprofit providers where possible, menu review, and nutrition requirements. The sponsor said it would clarify implementation without expanding the program, and supporters from meal providers, food distributors, and local farms said it would improve health outcomes, keep dollars local, and support Washington jobs and agriculture. House Bill 2329 would allow licensed midwives to delegate certain tasks to medical assistants and to supervise medical assistants, with the sponsor and birth center operators saying it would fix an omission in current law and help rural and under-resourced birth centers operate more efficiently. Supporters said it would improve staffing and financial stability, while the sponsor indicated the lactation consultant language would likely be removed because those consultants are not regulated by the Department of Health. The committee then returned to House Bill 1904 for additional testimony from humane organizations, veterinarians, shelter leaders, and local officials, all supporting a ban on declawing and emphasizing animal pain, shelter impacts, and available alternatives. House Bill 2247 would expand and clarify veterinary telehealth and veterinarian-client-patient relationship rules, allowing a VCPR to be established in certain telehealth circumstances and setting guardrails for consent, practice standards, and when in-person exams are still required. Supporters from shelters, animal welfare groups, mobile clinics, and veterinarians said telehealth would improve access in rural and underserved areas, reduce shelter intake, and help animals receive care sooner; the veterinary association supported the bill with amendments to clarify recordkeeping and access-to-care findings. House Bill 2339 would update nursing license terminology and processes for advanced registered nurse practitioners, including title changes, controlled substance rules for CRNAs, transcript submission, and interim permits. Nursing board and ARNP representatives supported the technical updates, while the hospital association and medical association raised concerns about title language for clinical nurse specialists and the deletion of a reference to the medical profession. Finally, House Bill 2106 would require health carriers to give 90 days’ notice of significant mid-contract payer modifications and provide the actual modification language, with the sponsor and hospital and provider representatives saying insurers are increasingly making unilateral changes that affect payment, services, and patient access. UW Medicine and a rural hospital district described examples where insurers changed imaging or preventive service coverage mid-contract, causing financial losses and forcing difficult choices about network participation. Carriers were noted as opposing the bill, while providers and facilities argued it would improve transparency and prevent one-sided contract changes that disrupt care.

Transcript Highlights:

• We had 36 contracts submitted. We had 36 contracts submitted.
• We have one contract. It's an amendment to add funds to our appraisal services contract.
• We have five contracts today. They are all engineering contracts, two-year contracts.
• I have four contracts.
• I have one contract. It's an annual... I have one contract.

Transcript Highlights:

• When did that contract contract?
• um contract contract contract signatur.
• And I'm reading the contract, and the contract is a contract.
• So what and the contract is a contract.
• </c><03:35:17.439><c> but</c> contract a legal contract and but contract a legal contract and but something

Summary: The joint House and Senate tourism briefing focused on the Hawaii Tourism Authority’s interim action plans, current projects, contract oversight, destination management action plans (DMAPs), and the impact of recent legislation and audit findings. Interim CEO Caroline Anderson said she accepted the temporary role to help address agency challenges, emphasized rebuilding trust, and said HTA is reviewing the state auditor’s concerns and posting its response publicly. She also described HTA’s mission and organizational structure under SB 1571, including reporting lines to the governor, the director, and the board, and outlined staff additions in finance, brand marketing, destination stewardship, and planning. A major topic was the permanent CEO search. HTA board chair Tata Po said the goal is to select a CEO within about four months, with the search firm still engaged, the position description being revised to reflect the new law and compensation changes, and approvals still needed before the job can be reposted. Members expressed frustration that the recruitment had been paused and questioned whether HTA has sufficient qualified leadership and staff during the interim period. Board leadership said the current staff is limited by vacancies but that they have confidence in the team and will add resources if needed. Members also pressed HTA on the role of the destination stewardship team and the CNHA/Kilohana contract, asking how staff oversight works and whether staff members were effectively wearing multiple hats. HTA explained that the stewardship team provides direction to contractors and that the work is divided among specialists overseeing projects such as tour guide certification, technical assistance, community tourism collaboratives, and a destination app. The committee also discussed whether the board can still vote on budgets under the new structure; the Attorney General’s office was cited as confirming that the board may advise, but the department director retains budget authority. HTA said it is working with CNHA and HVCB on contract and budget timing, with a goal of shifting to a calendar-year process so recipients know funding earlier.

Transcript Highlights:

• THE BUREAU OF CONTRACT MANAGES MODESTO MANAGEMENT MANAGES THE 960 VENDOR CONTRACTS AND THEY ENSURE THAT
• THESE AGREEMENTS INCLUDE BOTH STATE TERM CONTRACTS AND ALTERNATE CONTRACT THEY ARE DEFINED IN CHAPTER
• THAT IF AN AGENCY NEEDS A GOOD OF SERVICE ON A CONTRACT THEY HAVE TO PURCHASE FROM THE STATE TERM CONTRACT
• IF THE COMMODITY CONTRACTUAL SERVICE IS AVAILABLE ON THE STATE TERM CONTRACT OR ALTERNATE CONTRACT SOURCE
• CONTRACTS.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:05:09.919><c> list,</c> the personal service contract list, the personal service contract list
• It is a cost-plus contract." It is a cost-plus contract.
• So, it is a phased contract.
• So the contract is an already active<01:03:38.160><c> contract.
• A $360 million contract.

Summary: The committee met after several reschedulings due to flooding, welcomed a new assistant, and confirmed a quorum. It first approved the March 11 minutes, then reported that the day’s agenda included 310 items totaling about $139.4 million, with all vendors registered with the Secretary of State. The committee then approved deferred items involving the Transportation Cabinet/Department of Highways, including one routine PSC green-list item and one PSC amendment item, after hearing from the Transportation Cabinet’s Division of Professional Services and noting prior questions had been answered. The bulk of the meeting focused on Department of Education contracts tied to reading and literacy initiatives. Officials described a competitive grant program for high-quality instructional resources and related professional learning, explaining that resources are selected through evidence-based reviews and a quality curriculum task force, and that districts apply using an instructional resources alignment rubric. Members questioned the program’s reach, whether districts opt in, how many schools applied, and whether the effort is producing measurable reading gains. Department witnesses said about 155 schools applied and were awarded, the program is voluntary, and the University of Louisville’s Reading Research Center is collecting qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate effectiveness. Several members expressed concern that the state has repeatedly funded literacy efforts without improving reading scores, though the committee ultimately approved the education items, with Senator Meredith noting support but frustration about the lack of progress. The committee also approved an MOA amendment item supporting the Principal Partnership Project, which provides tools, resources, and professional learning for administrators and helps meet statutory evaluation-training requirements. Members asked about the use of nonrecurring federal funds and whether the arrangement affects retirement benefits; staff said the contract pays districts based on daily wage and additional workdays, which does increase retirement packages. Representative McCool voted yes but voiced caution about possible supplanting. Finally, the committee took up an Office of the Controller contract for a brokered insurance-related procurement. Representative Balman moved to disapprove the contract, arguing the winning broker was not the low bidder and that the committee lacked answers about how technical scoring outweighed a roughly $600,000 price difference. The motion to disapprove did not prevail, and the contract was approved after further discussion about procurement scoring and the committee’s limited information.